private sector" from the it standpoint. it's night and day. you have hard time drawing parallels and from the private sector come to government thinking that a lot of our ideas and methods of success in the private sector are directly applicable to how we do work in government, and it's a different problem to solve frankly. it's something i have to relearn frequently that the large company i came from was a large monolithic corporation and 1ceo and pyramid up and trickled and everyone did what they did. government as you know we're are a highly decentralized independently elected, independently operated with our boards and commissions. as much as i would like to say i had the authority or will or desire to cast my will on the organization and have things happen it's not as simple as that, so a lot of

my jobs and our jobs come down to partnership and discussion and consensus building and meetings and more meetings and unfortunately that takes more time than a linear top down structure so when i talk at conferences -- i was at dream force not long ago and having lunch with people "i don't understand government and how this works". i spent time educating people how government is today and how we're trying to change it and streamline it and maybe it more efficient but it's a challenge and it's a transition for a organization. i think like a battle ship city government is not easy to turn quickly. it's going to take us years of hard work and partnership and dedication to make that happen. i think we are forging those partnerships. i think there will be debated about centralize and decentralization but in the interim period or department

heads make a determination about that i think it boils down to partnerships and i think department of technology and cio and coit we spend time creating these partnerships and the consolidation project is a great one. i also want to acknowledge the airport and the emergency management center and we have a great partnership with. we have a great partnership with labor and reclassify it positions and training program whereas in the past it was done on a department by department basis so i think we're creating those partnerships for success, but i think at the end of the day it's a transitional challenge for the organization to go from thinking of itself as minicorporations as they view themselves at times in independent departments to work together as a cohesive unit. it just grew up. we started in the main frame days and monolithic and those terminals and pc

revolution game and it was different overnight and everyone had a pc and the expert on how to work things so we are looking for a balance. we are bringing your own device to work and still balance that and what does it make sense to have centralized and do from a security confidential standpoint and it's exciting time. i welcome the dialogue. i welcome the question. i certainly want to continue the dialogue. i think we are making progress. there are challenges and what we can do and i will own what we can do to make things better but these things to happen, the open conversations, the honest conversation bs what is working, what is not working and will help us in the future in the

city. thank you president chiu. >> thank you. i want to thank you for your work you have done at department of technology and tough economic times and the fact of the matter is your department has been subjected to the lion's share of budget cuts we were forced to do and not asking departments to make similar cuts in their it situation and i think that is part of the tension and why we shouldn't know been able to make headway. you allude to the fact until you get direction from the top about need of centralization you had to form partnerships and you as the head of department of technology can't tell other heads to cooperate and you have to work out and partnership. one of the things that i wished the grand jury spent more time on. this is the trend we're seeing in agencies and

governments around the country. by in large most governments have a growing decentralization and we know we're not doing that for everything but there are functions that need to be decentralized and we know there are successes here in california and the state is expected to save $3 billion. denver went through a great consolidation and saving millions of dollars. what are those entities doing that we're not? what cultural changes or cultural values have they implemented from a leadership standpoint that we're lacking? >> to be frank i think the organizational stomach really for how much it up sets the organization to go through the changes? the company i worked before did out sowzing of it

and we went into states and took over the it operations and we could save a government millions of dollars by doing that, but for a government to centralize or out source it it's disruptive, up setting project to have happen, and i think the majority of us in the city feel enough progress is being made to not take that drastic step and whereas you talk about denver or california and i was familiar with michigan when they consolidated their data centers there and i came to know the head there, and there was a willingness and whether driven by the budget or political desire to upset the entire model. kind of blow it up and put it back together again. if you think it's that broken and it takes political will power to make that happen. we have

partnerships and i think i have good partnerships with the cio's and the department heads and that drastic change which i he alluded to is up setting and unsettling and usually two years and we struggled with large projects and i would ask if this organization is mature enough to take on those initiative disblis think one thing i want to observe and in my first coit meeting in 2009 the body decided we were going to consolidate our email. that was four years ago, and as you know, and as i think many folks in this room knows every few months we got an update why things weren't moving and i wanted to quote a part of the civil grand jury report want the jury has been told that some

members vote yes on the policy and with their department drag their heels in implementing that policy and one refused to go along with the full implementation of projects" and i bring this up because i often find there seems to be on the service support for what we are trying to achieve versus centralization of these functions but when it comes to actual implementation doesn't seem like there is much accountability and again i don't put that on you. i think that is a broader conversation of the management of our agencies and i think that direction needs to come from the top and when we decide as policy makers this is what we're going to do to create accountability and that's the piece i think is really missing in many of these project and getting them done. >> john, quick question for you, and i appreciate all your comments and responses and the time we have worked together on

certain projects. i think backing up on the civil grand jury report and president chiu's question you talk about organizational and operational questions and the dialogue and whether it's a structural issue, the centralization? to me it's real. i appreciate your budget has been slashed 25% and brutal in any environment and especially when other budgets hasn't been slashed as much, and understanding it might upset the apple cart so to speak, but i don't think we can be afraid of that in g we have to innovate. to some degree and maybe your department faces a challenge and labeled innovation capital of the world, however you want to label it and in the center of technology globally and i think

we are expected to innovate. so what are some of the things that have to happen? what environments do you have to see -- let's say it's a centralization issue. what are issues that have to take place to have that dialogue happening? to me as i read through the report and i don't know about you president chiu, there seems to be an issue here. and progress is being made and that is great but is it fast enough? when i tell people i am on lotus notes for email it's a round laughter all along and what needs to take place. >> let me say two things about the conversation and let me put it out there how i perceive the

comments and the reports and supervisor your comments. number one is we did studies if we're spending enough on it in the city. if you look at the budget city wide and north of $7 billion a year we spend on city services which is frankly a huge amount of money, so when you look at the percentage whether it's $150 million or $250 million depending which report you read from it -- >> by the way if i can make one note and we can't figure out that number is astonishing to me and i ask every year in the budget process and this report points to $250 million i think is more accurate and ongoing question to the mayor's office and the controller's office and how we get a handle of that.

my apologies for interrupting. >> what do we want to do? do we want to save money? is that our goal in san francisco? i suggest to you and i am not embarrassed by the fact we're are the innovation city and it's a lot of money and i think we should be innovative with that money and don't you feel bad because you're government and always a lagger? i don't feel i am. i come from the private sector and i can be as innovative as others and granted i don't have certain challenges and i don't have shareholders breathing down my neck but i have other challenges and remember that most organizations that centralize to do it to save money. most are about the performance they're achieving

and they out source to inch krimentally save more money and a cost savings discussion and if we use technology as a driver and this is from the department's perspective i think we're kind of squeezing blood out of a turnip at that point. i think the question is are we getting our money's worth? do we clear clee understand for the money that we spend on it in the city are we achieving what we want to achieve? for that money should you be on the old email system or a new one? i think one the challenges is how much are we spending all the time are we making wise investments and getting our money out of spend something and when we compare to other cities and we are

spending about -- a little less than other bigger cities and do than per capita, per person, per population, per employee our numbers are slightly lower on the scale, but are we getting the money's worth? i think that is the frustration and it's a lot of money and some departments are on old systems and others are on new and the equity. >> i agree with the comments. my question is not how much we spend. i think it spending is worth the investment, but is it are we getting our money's worth? and to your example though how much different email systems are we're running here? is centralized the better way? that is revamping but that question needs to be asked and

what i am wondering what are the bigger obstacles in your mind and? and there are different groups responsible and maybe the mayor's office needs to take a look or push with this and if we have so many systems it doesn't mens sense -- >> >> make sense. >> i think it goes to why we're updating the plan and how we're updating. the original plan -- one of the weakness was there wasn't connection between the department and it is bigger goals to achieve as a city, so there wasn't the direct connection between departmental initiatives and spending and koid and with enterprise

systems and collaboration and the things that we spend auto meetings i of in in the last 60 days and the revised plan which will come next year is making that connection. certainly you could do it through organizational structure and easier to tell people to go interest one group and fall into line and even though i like that simple approach and i have seen others suggest it and it not go anywhere. one thing for koid -- there is one belief we focus and manage they're on time and on budget and i think that is important, but perhaps the bigger challenge for coit and the subcommittee is clearly articulating the goals. one email system as the vision and how does it align to that vision? i see now a laundry list of what departments do and

not what coit does and i understand that we don't want to punitive for not participating and all of the projects are important, but in the nextittereration can make that connection and these five projects are the highest priority and continue to the goal but the structure is less important than the focus and the positive reinforcement giving to departments and this is better than this and we need to help people see what they do. >> thank you. i appreciate your responses. president chiu any other questions right now? okay. we have to go to item two but first i will open it up to public comment on the hearing, so if there are any members of

the public that wish to speak on item one, the item we have been going through, please line up if there is anyone at all. crickets. okay. before i close it are there any other department representatives that -- i know we only called a few folks that want to speak that haven't been offered an opportunity. i know people are here and in a responsive community and if anyone wants to speak. anybody? with they will say public comment is closed. president chiu can we -- what do you want to do with item number one? >> why don't we -- i guess why don't we table this item. >> okay. we can do that without objection. and to item number two. for members of the public that don't witness these normally with the civil grand jury report they ask the board of supervisors to respond to

findings and recommendations of their reports. this one regarding the technology system is quite extensive. i want to thank the civil grand jury for putting our paces with this one and we will have some dialogue and we might have questions along the way and with that president chiu do you want to take charge here? >> sure. first of all i wanted to note it's interesting no one wanted to speak in public comment on this item. i know there have been folks focused on these questions for a long time and probably city staffers watching this hearing not sharing their shoats and i am looking and the policy makers are looking to have an open dialogue with these moatings and what i find in coit meetings everyone agrees and projects take 15 years and millions of dollars over budget to get done and i am getting frankly

frustrated and tired about that, so i encourage city staffers and others who have an opinion on this and feel free to raise them in coit meetings or contact my office and i am willing to have more private conversations and i think having an open dialogue how we strengthen our operations. how we can work better with the department of technology and all of these are important. just as the chairman described for this item we were asked by the civil grand jury to give our perspective on a variety of items and you asked us to comment on dozens and dozens of items, and i would suggest for the future if possible, and as someone who sits on the committee and goes through the findings and possible to streamline some of these and hit on some of the important ones. i think it

dilute what is we're trying to achieve and just one point. also as i read through the comments and report the civil grand jury made a number of findings and recommendations that they want us to agree with and i think it's fair to say that the mayor's office disagreed with the vast majority of recommendations and they asked departments to provide their perspective, and i think it's fair to say that the recommendations and findings we received from departments were really all over the map and i of thinking about this and in my mind making my thoughts whether i agree with the civil grand jury or diagree with the mayor is there an answer in between? by in large if the answers are partially agree, agree, partially disagree, or disagree and many of my answers were

partially agree. i think where the grand jury wanted to go make sense but i wanted to move it along and i am going to read through the recommendation and i will try to do this quickly. i'm not reading the specific recommendations and i am read a number. number one, partially agree. while this has been helpful departments have not -- fiez ebl a stronger sense of priority and direction is needed for move forward with the direction. finding number two. partially agree. while the department of technology has been viewed as competent and professional for some functions and some departments other departments have stated that the department of technology has not provided satisfactory service as often as desired. >> president chiu -- as we go

through the items and clarify them if we have discussion so we can record the information -- what the recommendation will be. >> sure. okay. >> mr. chair, members of the committee and higher budget -- [inaudible] analyst office. if it's possible through the chair if it's possible president chiu to get a copy of the written testimony. >> i think i have one more copy. >> that is terrific. thank you. >> i think since we have two members here we will agree and i think the mayor going to every one and is not feasible but to make it a bigger priority is real and

actionable here and i agree. >> for finding number two and give everyone context i will probably summarize the finding we're asking to refer to. the finding was the department of technology continues to perceived by customers providing unsatisfactory service and my response is it's comp tentd for some functions and some department there are other departments that they don't give satisfactory services as often as desired. finding number three -- for this i state that i disagreed with this. the recent cuts department of technology budget have not been because of a lack of performance but the result of budget deficits across the board and i think they have born the

massive bruntd of this within the technology world. >> i agree. >> finding number four -- the finding we were asking to react to. another consequence of dt for departments and participate in city wide initiatives and give up operational independence and for this i state that i agree. because other departments haven't had full faith in dt and not willing to give up operational independence. >> i would agree with that and i think that talks about the structural things we were talking about and structural issues and i look forward to the dialogue going forward and i think there are changes to be made here. >> number five and coit policies and changes and not communicated effectively to the mayor and coit and for this i would -- actually i think i partially agree. i would say partially disagree and i state while coit

policies and city wide initiatives are communicated clearly there is no follow up or deadlines to carry out policies and initiatives. number six. this was set by an administrative code change i lghtded in 2010 and it has now been two years. >> can i just ask the mayor's office? do we have progress report how those seats are being filled? >> there is progress on that. i think city administrator's office is here and recruiting for the positions in november and taking applications and coit can make t a selection in the early of the

new year. >> okay. >> and i wish to let folks know if members would like to participate in coit we would very much appreciate hearing from you. so item number seven, the current city wide organizational structure hinders the cio from using the established authority and responsibility from implementing policies and procedures and what i have said for this i partially agree. while the city cio has some powers decentralized organized structure makes it difficult to enforce standards across departments. >> okay. >> finding number eight. and this is going to go on for a while and i apologize to the public. number eight and the operational role of the department of technology are two furchdamentally different and equally full time jobs and i said have said i partially

agree. while there are needs for these two positions the department of technology deputy could assist in these operations and this will relate to recommendations made later on. finding number nine, department cio's have no formal way to communicate with each other or technology issues and my reaction is partially agree. while there is no formal forum there are informal ones and meet in meetings and if there were more formal meetings and for these accountability measures to be instituteed. >> i have a quick question. is the airport cio here? just for a second. i notice your response here that you actually agreed with the finding. just your thoughts on what could be done. >> as president chiu suggested

i agree with the finding. we should have more formalized meetings so that was my basis for that. >> okay. any specific forum from that suggestion that he might have? i think reading through the responses you were the one response and maybe actually spoke out and said "i agree" and wanted to solicit your feedback. >> i didn't give it more thought to the feedback but i think we need a regularly scheduled meeting with agenda and objectives for that dialogue and planning to occur. >> okay thank you. >> and supervisor farrell hearing that and by the way i want to thank the airport. i think your department has been a great example of how technology has been well managed and this is why i think we entrusted your department with the data center project. i could agree or partially agree with the statement depending where you want to